I never understood why some people complain about the length of games. Some NES games like Contra, Bionic Commando, Castlevania could be beat in 30 mins or less and others with passwords, codes and cheats could be be even quicker then that. NES games ranged from $40-60 like how most games are now. That was at a time when there was no achievements, DLC, or unlockables. When games are too long or have too much DLC (Skyrim, Fallouts, Mass Effect) I start to lose interest because it then starts to feel like a chore playing. I admit I haven't been playing too many new games recently, mainly been playing older stuff but I'm gonna get The Walking Dead, MLB The Show 13 and that will hold me off for a long time.

Here's a good read about Gears of War creator Cliff Bleszinski stating the industry is in turmoil

RE6 tried to cram too many elements from past games, and it did not work. It tried to move closer to RE's roots, which I liked, but it could have been better. Although I enjoyed the game, it had wasted potential. I don't feel like getting too detailed about it.

skullman80 wrote:I'm a console gamer and I've loved this generation of console games. There have been some clunkers, but there has been some awesome series of games as well.

The generation was much better in like 2008-2009. It has gotten stale the past few years imo.

I'd wager it's because there hasn't been a relatively new idea since then. Everything that's out now seems like it's a sequel to something, and the innovation and creativity that you'd get from a new series and/or a new story is either beaten like a dead horse or virtually non-existent in the sequels (i.e. Mass Effect, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, etc.).

TOR flopped because there wasn't any game left once you maxed your player out, but that flop was because people were expecting the game depth out of WoW in the Star Wars MMO. WoW content has been developed continuously for nearly a decade, no wonder a game just starting out isn't going to have that same depth. Unrealistic expectations killed it.

RE6 tried to cram too many elements from past games, and it did not work. It tried to move closer to RE's roots, which I liked, but it could have been better. Although I enjoyed the game, it had wasted potential. I don't feel like getting too detailed about it.

I'm glad I didn't get it then. If they come back with another in the style of 5, i'm all in. Otherwise, not interested in the series.

SolidSnake wrote:I never understood why some people complain about the length of games. Some NES games like Contra, Bionic Commando, Castlevania could be beat in 30 mins or less and others with passwords, codes and cheats could be be even quicker then that. NES games ranged from $40-60 like how most games are now. That was at a time when there was no achievements, DLC, or unlockables. When games are too long or have too much DLC (Skyrim, Fallouts, Mass Effect) I start to lose interest because it then starts to feel like a chore playing. I admit I haven't been playing too many new games recently, mainly been playing older stuff but I'm gonna get The Walking Dead, MLB The Show 13 and that will hold me off for a long time.

Here's a good read about Gears of War creator Cliff Bleszinski stating the industry is in turmoil

I'd like to see you beat any of those NES games in 30 mins. The only time those are completed that quickly are TAS runs and regular speed runs. A normal person picking up those games doesn't beat them in 30 mins. Heck Contra is/was so hard people needed the 30 lives code to beat it. Super C was even harder. Just because a game could be beaten in 30 mins doesn't mean it is beaten in 30 mins when playing.

I've been playing GTA: San Andreas recently and gotten pissed quite a few times in the game. There is so much meaningless fetch questing and traveling large distances simply in the name of making the game longer. Does that make for a better game? Does adding length for the sake of adding length make the game better?

Pavel Bure wrote:I've been playing GTA: San Andreas recently and gotten pissed quite a few times in the game. There is so much meaningless fetch questing and traveling large distances simply in the name of making the game longer. Does that make for a better game? Does adding length for the sake of adding length make the game better?

I felt this way about Zelda Windwaker. Great game and great gameplay. But just sailing long distances w/ nothing at all going on added so much time to the game it was ridiculous.

SolidSnake wrote:I never understood why some people complain about the length of games. Some NES games like Contra, Bionic Commando, Castlevania could be beat in 30 mins or less and others with passwords, codes and cheats could be be even quicker then that. NES games ranged from $40-60 like how most games are now. That was at a time when there was no achievements, DLC, or unlockables. When games are too long or have too much DLC (Skyrim, Fallouts, Mass Effect) I start to lose interest because it then starts to feel like a chore playing. I admit I haven't been playing too many new games recently, mainly been playing older stuff but I'm gonna get The Walking Dead, MLB The Show 13 and that will hold me off for a long time.

Here's a good read about Gears of War creator Cliff Bleszinski stating the industry is in turmoil

I'd like to see you beat any of those NES games in 30 mins. The only time those are completed that quickly are TAS runs and regular speed runs. A normal person picking up those games doesn't beat them in 30 mins. Heck Contra is/was so hard people needed the 30 lives code to beat it. Super C was even harder. Just because a game could be beaten in 30 mins doesn't mean it is beaten in 30 mins when playing.

I've been playing GTA: San Andreas recently and gotten pissed quite a few times in the game. There is so much meaningless fetch questing and traveling large distances simply in the name of making the game longer. Does that make for a better game? Does adding length for the sake of adding length make the game better?

I can beat Contra with 3 lives, I beat Bionic Commando litterally over 100 times and I'd did it in 27 mins before. It's not hard to do.

SolidSnake wrote:Every player is different but games were short then too regardless as well. People tend to forget that.

Definitely agree games were much shorter then. I think that is one of the reasons I still love the old school NES. You could sit down and play Super Mario Brothers and beat it in under an hour and move onto the next game.

And even the longer games were only like 3 or 4 hours of time to put in.

I was just saying that to beat a few of those games under 30 minutes on a regular basis isn't really that easy.

That said, they are shorter games, especially compared to today's standards. And I loved it.

I know for me when I was younger, I only got games for birthdays and for Christmas. I would ocassionally rent a game but I didn't rent it long enough to beat the game and renting games were hit or miss because then there was no demos or reviews to go by. I got good at the games I had because I had no other choice.

I agree, I liked just sitting down and beating games, thats what I would do with Bionic Commando, Castlevania, Ninja Gaiden, Renegade, Rygar. Though TMNT 1 and RC Pro Am still both own me.

RE6 tried to cram too many elements from past games, and it did not work. It tried to move closer to RE's roots, which I liked, but it could have been better. Although I enjoyed the game, it had wasted potential. I don't feel like getting too detailed about it.

I'm glad I didn't get it then. If they come back with another in the style of 5, i'm all in. Otherwise, not interested in the series.

It was still closer to 5 than maybe RE4, so maybe you would like it. It's hard for me to explain it without getting into a super long post.

A problem that could have been good in theory but felt incomplete/disjointed was the 4 separate campaigns. There wasn't enough time to really get into the characters. There were also a lot of vehicle chases that wasted a lot of time from short campaigns.

SolidSnake wrote:I know for me when I was younger, I only got games for birthdays and for Christmas. I would ocassionally rent a game but I didn't rent it long enough to beat the game and renting games were hit or miss because then there was no demos or reviews to go by. I got good at the games I had because I had no other choice.

I agree, I liked just sitting down and beating games, thats what I would do with Bionic Commando, Castlevania, Ninja Gaiden, Renegade, Rygar. Though TMNT 1 and RC Pro Am still both own me.

I spent a lot of time mastering Metal Gear for NES. I had all of the pitfalls marked on the map that were missing and had my map laminated.

I never got into NES games as a kid. My dad was in IT so we always had PCs even before the internet days. I was playing those early 90s flight sims and space sims instead of super nintendo. You could get a ridiculous amount of hours out of those just mastering how to fly.